What did she do right? What did she do wrong?

>>900980

Thatcher Thatcher baby milk snatcher.

File: anigif_enhanced-buzz-19622-1365434487-13[1].gif (2MB, 476x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 476x360px

Pleb questions senpai.
She still triggers lefties though, so fair play to her

>What did she do wrong?

Didnt die in that bomb

>>900980
>What did she do right?
Nothing.

>What did she do wrong?
Everything.

>>900980
>What did she do wrong?
Didn't have her neck snap under the weight of that fivehead

ITT: teenagers who were born years after she left government but are buttmad because their teachers said so

>What did she do right?

Her council house projects were successful.

>What did she do wrong?

She basically fucked over the countryside, creating huge wealth disparity.

She put the economy into a recession and massive inflation.

She gave the IRA ground to stand on when she let the Irish hunger strikers die.

Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher.

Her labor policies resulted in much of the UK's industry moving to other places in Europe.

Teachers and nurses were severely underpaid.

Agriculture and fishing suffered under her reign.

The striking miners incidents resulted in the loss of many jobs in the UK's mining industry.

The poll tax was a bad move for the rich AND the poor.

Didn't let Britain get cucked by brown people

Died

>>900980
She was too cheeky a cunt to have done too much wrong. For such an attractive English woman to step up and have the bants in parliament on the level of men means she was truly exceptional. Not nearly conservative enough, but by then all the old farts who would have gone for that were long called pensioners.

File: 1408669193243.gif (1MB, 176x144px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 176x144px

>>901019
>She gave the IRA ground to stand on when she let the Irish hunger strikers die.
>Irish hunger strikers die of hunger
>it's not their fault, dey din doo nuffin
>dey not conscient beings, responsible of their own actions, nuh uh
>terrorist group uses such an incident as casus belli, apparently

Kek, that just sounds hilarious. What were the circumstances of that incident?

I am not an Anglo, so I will have to research Thatcher's policies.

>>901004
>>900998
>>900992
Crusty northerners

>>901111
>What were the circumstances of that incident?
A bunch of terrorists objected to being treated like criminals. After all, they only bombed a furniture store and shot a couple of policemen. It's just another example of the oppression of the British state that these demonstrations in the name of Irish freedom were classed as "illegal". Clearly, the hunger strikers were soldiers and deserved to be given POW status, rather than being put in the same category as murderers and arsonists.

>>900980
>what did she do right
Dying.

>what did she do wrong
Bringing the eternal anglo back from the dead.

>>900980
The only Reason That She was popular is because of The Falkland war
The problem is that the Labour Party's "New Left" Thought it was because of her economic Policies and set Back Britian Decades in terms of inequality

>>901111
>>901255
>butthurt anglos and anglophiles

>>901286
>set Back Britian Decades in terms of inequality
the only thing the old labour party was ever good at was making everybody equally poor.

>>900980
>What did she do right?
crushed the unions, defended Britain's territorial integrity, revitalised the economy, encouraged small businesses and home ownership in the working class

>What did she do wrong?
A bit too much privatisation. It would have been nice if she could have preserved more British industry (although I can see why she didn't, given that the unions absolutely refused to show any kind of reasonable compromise). Could have taken better care of the NHS, and shown a bit more interest in social services in general.

She failed to defend conservative values against previous liberal incursions, she allowed the British currency to appreciate which hastened the decline of manufacturing jobs and she didn't nuke Buenos Aires.

She said no

>>901371
>revitalized the economy

>>901019
>he thinks he understands economics
>he thinks it's all about class struggle
Her reforms were necessary and the negative effects were only in the short run, since the whole economy was incredibly dependent on the government and needed time to adjust.

Did some good considering the British economy was a shitshow. Falklands War.

Seemed to not understand that not everyone would act in the way she thought they would (ie move and find work). Should have retrained the workers made redundant due to the closing of mines etc.

Also Poll tax in Scotland was a bad move and fucked the conservatives.

>a nation industrializes and develops a service economy, and later an information economy
>the rural countryside, defined by its absence of concentrations of secondary, tertiary and quarternary activities, cannot keep up with the development of the country
>this is not only bad, but the fault of politicians

>>902168
She did nothing wrong, Thatcher put them out of their misery. Even if she did something about it, all the PM would've done was slow down the eventual decline.

>>900980
>>900980
>What did she do right?
Complained privately about her country becoming New Pakistan.
>What did she do wrong?
Kept it to herself and did nothing about it.

The mother of Cuckservatism, everyone.

She gutted the jungle canyon rope bridge funding.

She destroyed the British Industry, destroyed energy security, sold off Britains assets to her mates in the city, sold off social housing, she made millions unemployed, destroyed the education system and gave millions to private wealthy middle classes.

>>902772
he came out stew

File: 101911_laughing_game_show_host_t.jpg (23KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x250px

>>903047
>sold off Britains assets to her mates in the city
Every tory seems to do that according to you lefties. How come there's still stuff to sell off if all they do is sell to the bankers the bonuses?

>>903047
So Britain doesn't have an educational system anymore? Where do children go to school? Or are you a butthurt leftist harping back to some antediluvian fantasy?

>>901019
>She put the economy into a recession
Good job proving you don't know what you're talking about

>>903047
>sold off Britains assets
Does it not make you feel slightly stupid that after the assets were sold of and were no longer monopolised by the state the quality of service vastly improved? BT were one of the worst services in the world, waiting times for a phone would be astronomical and depended entirely on whether or not the company could be bothered to set up a phone that day, after privatisation the efficiency improved dramatically, the number of people with phones sky rocketed and the quality only went on to improve over time. Same thing goes for other things such as British Airways which was recognised as one of the worst airways in the world, after privatization it has been recognised as one of the best.

>>900980
>What did she do right?
Privatizing
>What did she do wrong?
Not privatizing enough

>>900998
>>900992
>>901004
solid argument lads, you really thought that through well and made some interesting points

>>900980

>What did she do right?

Invented Mr Whippy ice cream.

>What did she do wrong?

Stole milk from children.

>>903964

In fairness they just answered the question, nothing about their posts suggests they were trying to make a complex argument.

File: 1430132571157.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

Why are Britbongs so butthurt over their milk? The rest of the world doesn't treat schoolchildren like tit sucking babies.

>>903913
This tbqh

She, along with Reagan, help set up the neoliberal paradigm that we're now living under which will inevitably result in Britain becoming a playground of the rich and the further erosion of a common sense of community.

>>903992
Because brits lost their industrious spirit. Now it's "everything for a quiet life".

>>904002
Yeah, because before Thatcher we lived in peace and harmony, with respect for all, and you could leave your door unlocked, and curly wurlys were only 10p and you could buy three pints and get change from a shilling, and the sky was bluer and the summers were properly hot, and then Thatcher came along and ruined it all

What she did was create a political shift to the right which set the way for the modern neoliberal consensus (which I admit is in the process of being broken). Most things were not handed particularly well, but I admire a lot of her modernising reforms, for education in particular. Some good foreign policy (but also some bad), questionable economic ones, and dreadful at handling home affairs for the most part. Do I appreciate her? No. Do I admire her? You sort of have to. Her sheer force of will changed a country for the long run, she was responsible for a power shift which will most likely never revert.

Privatising the profits from North Sea oil was an ideological, idiotic move.

Invested in safe assets it could've been worth anywhere from £450-850 billion by 2008, really useful when you have situations like financial crashes.

Instead it wasn't used for the good of the country, it was used to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest.

>>904002
>becoming a playground for the rich
The exact opposite. Her reforms prevented the established elite from being comfortable and made them fight for their positions in the market.

Thatcher 'destroying those evil unionists' is a classic example of history books being written by the winners. It was a war that the Conservative central Government won, and they had to Blitzkreig to do it. Does anyone truly look at Germany and think "those damn over unionised Germans, they are being held back"? Of course they don't, and yet Germany has elected board members by law and some of the best employee rights in the Western World.

Cameron is doing the same with education now, they'd rather let something die completely than lose the war over it.

>>904038
Yeah but German unions weren't as retarded as British unions, and they were making better products. British unions went on strike to make sure Austin and Rover continued to duplicate each others shitty carsrather than lose jobs.

>>904058
Although I have generally pro unionist tendencies, I'm not one to overlook their special kind of retardation. However I much prefer them to the centralising power hog that was Thatcher and her Government. People often criticise her for being ideological. I wish she was more ideological. She seemed to LOVE unions the second Lech Walesa arrived on the scenes. The blatant hypocrisy of that is straight up astounding. This isn't fucking House of Cards.

>>904078
To be fair there was a big difference between Solidarity and British Leyland. I don't think it's enormously hypocritical to support those rebelling against Soviet tyranny, while also attempting to modernise the British car industry

>>904038

In fairness, and I say this as a moderate leftist, the British unions were run by Marxists hell bent on toppling governments, particularly Tory governments, by going on strike. That's one of the reasons Thatcher crushed them, they weren't just interested in using worker solidarity to obtain better pay and conditions etc by reasonable negotiating and only striking when appropriate.

>>904164
The leadership maybe. I don't think the common working man was all that interested in a Marxist revolution. It was them that lost out, and who gained from Thatcher's reforms? The city.

>>904168
It's not like the workers had an actual say in union decisions. If the leaders said you had to go on strike, you had no choice.

http://youtu.be/7VlcjyNwA10
Thoughts?

>>904017
>Invested in safe assets it could've been worth anywhere from £450-850 billion by 2008
yeah, it could've

then again, it could have thrown into the big black hole that was British industry. Remember, thatcher didn't know that she was going to get 12 years to do her thing. Especially in the early years it looked pretty likely that Labour would take back control, in which case you can forgive her for trying to put as many assets as possible beyond their reach.

>>901019
>hunger strikers
cry me a river. Would you like to try a cheeseburger, Bobby Sands?
>muh pits
I come from a mining family in Nottinghamshire, my great-granddad wouldn't talk to my granddad for years because he kept going to work during the strike. The mines were not a sustainable or beneficial way of keeping people employed. They were basically benefits with added back-breaking labour

>>901616
>Should have retrained the workers made redundant due to the closing of mines etc.
how?

>>900980
1979 britian is asking the IMF for a loan
, she came in fixed it , sorted

>Disregard for the hunger strikes
>Responses like 'lol XD deserved it

This is why no one likes you. For anyone who posts these things

>>906169

So if I chose not to eat mommy thatcher should feed me against my will so I can't face the consequences of my actions.

>>906169
>bomb furniture store
>expect to be treated like POW, as if this was a legitimate military target
what was Thatcher supposed to do, give into Sands' demands?

>>906169
What do you expect honestly, Anglos are the most arrogant and easily triggered people on the internet.

>>905154
>cry me a river
Big Red, is that you?

>>908136

>the people crying about a criminal they never met, starving HIMSELF to death, 30 years after the fact are normal
>the people who don't give a shit are triggered

>>908129
>REEEEEE why am i not allowed to mass intern people and disgregard human rights

>>908145
Any time anyone even states the slightest dislike for Britain Anglos go mad. It's like criticising feminism.

>>908177
If Clement Attlee's policies worked, why was the economy in tatters when it was handed to Margaret Thatcher? This is like blaming Obama for the housing bubble.

>>908186
Which was caused by the neoliberal policies of Thatcher and Reagan.

>>908187
Neoliberalism is a school of international relations you blithering retard

>>908177
>pinochet was bad
>mandela was good
>muh milk
shit/10

>>905154
>Would you like to try a cheeseburger, Bobby Sands?

Please, it's "could you go a chicken dinner Bobby Sands?". Still sung to this day in pubs.

I really don't know much about her but in an interesting anecdote I was travelling around England a few years ago when she died. I ended up talking to a cabbie about it and he said that a lot of people misremember what it was like before her tenure. He said that people in the countryside were working 3 day week's, treated their unions as babysitters and sat on their arses expecting handouts from a welfare system they barely supported.

I don't know if any of this was true but I thought it was neat.

>>908635
Sounds awesome. I'm even more annoyed at the bitch now.

>>909873

>only getting paid for three days work but having all the bills and expenses of seven sounds great

>>901371
Chilean here, dont know shit about margaret but thank god for her, it was her response to the Argentinian invasion, that prevented them for invading the southern regions and the magallanes stretch.

>>900980
Economy - right

Hair - circular

>>909889
>only having to work three days to pay the bills of seven

I don't think you understand how reality works

She successfully performed a massive reform of the british economy

She sold al ot of gibmedat housing which contributed to the decline of the right wing

>>900980
She absolutely fucked over coal miners in Wales and Scotland. She also attacked the Falklands for whatever fucking reason.

>>908186
You do realize Attlee was PM in the forties? His policies were not responsible for the economic conditions of 80s Britain in the slightest

>>911420
>what is the unsustainability of the welfare state
It might take four decades, but the bill eventually arrives.

>>910812
Chilean here, you don't know shit about your own country's history. The Falklands War was in 1982, the Beagle conflict arbitration was in 1977, concluding in favor of Chile, which Argentina unilaterally declared it null and then threatened with war in 1978, so Jimmy Carter - trying to avoid a war between anti communist allies and maintain status quo - came up with the idea of Papal mediation since both countries were catholic dictatorships, meaning they would hear the pope, represented by Cardinal Samoré, succesfully ending with the Friendship and Peace treaty of 1984.

Thatcher had NOTHING to do with it. In fact, in 1982 the military junta provided military aid with espionage and troops and naval mobilization to the south and the border, so argentinian forces would take the bait, send their professional army to the border and NOT to the Falklands, making it easier for the british task force to face only conscripts and not prepared soldiers.

That's why argies call us traitors, which is fucking unfair since a few years prior Argentina was a complete dick and the junta acted that way since they were butthurt. Also, the US aided with sattellite intel and they don't even say shit about it.

So there, Thatcher helped Pinochet because she owed him a huge fucking favour, not the other way around

>>912064
Yes, yes you are.

>>903523
>Every tory seems to do that according to you lefties.
That's because they do.

>>910835

Reading comprehension dude. I'm saying it's a bad thing.

File: mtactions.jpg (86KB, 609x511px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 609x511px

>>908187
>>911420
Nationalisation was one of the key events of Attlee's government while privatisation was one of the key events of Thatcher's government.

Any deregulation responsible for the housing bubble in America did not occur in Britain under Thatcher. Clinton, not Reagan, was the US president overseeing this.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/ls241.aspx

>It will guarantee that our financial system will continue to meet the needs of underserved communities, something that the vice president and I have tried to do through the empowerment zones, the enterprise communities, the community-development financial institutions, but something which has been largely done through the private sector in honoring the Community Reinvestment Act. The legislation I sign today establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of that act.
t. Bill "chubby chaser" Clinton

>>911417
>She also attacked the Falklands for whatever fucking reason.
Are you serious?

>What did she do right?
Falklands War

>What did she do wrong?
Nothing that I care about. These Britbongs pay a TV license and they're complaining about poll tax.

>>912488

> having to pay to use a service is bad

>>903912
What about BR?

>>912577
Aye, I agree that BR wasn't handled very well, there was too much bureaucracy involved in everything iirc

She over fucked unions, she fucked over leftist and fucked over the Irish

I am literally in love with her

>>912493
>Government services are good
wew

MUH MILK. MUH DISGUSTING MINES : the thread

im not shocked at all

>>912850
You don't sound like an edgy try hard at all.

Still two of those were good things.

>>912896

Yeah, they kinda are. If you don't want to watch BBC programming, you don't have to pay it either.

>>903992

>implying

>>901111
I think it was more the fact that the crazy bastards wanted to die for the cause and be martyrs. We should have forced fed them into submission and put them in a mental health institution.

>>911902
>the Friendship and Peace treaty of 1984.
>1984
i.e. two years after the Falklands. If it was Papal mediation that made the difference, why did it drag on for five years? I can imagine that the way this is taught in extremely Catholic countries in Latin America focuses heavily on the Papacy's role, but really, it should be obvious to anyone that peace between Argentina and Chile was only possible after the Argentinian junta fell. Which wouldn't have happened without Britain's victory in the Falklands.

Most of Argentina's reason for wanting the Falklands was because they were planning a war with Chile and wanted a defensible naval base in the south. It was obvious to everybody that Argentina's attack on the Falklands was the beginning of a plan which would then lead to war with Chile (Galtieri specifically stated that this was the case). No one expected Britain to fight for the Falklands; Galtieri expected to seize control of the Falklands in a few days and then start the real war against Chile. Chile moved their troops to the border because they were expecting to have to repel an Argentinian invasion, not because they wanted to help the British by luring Argentinian troops away (although that was certainly a bonus for Chile).

Britain and Chile's relationship in the 80s was reciprocal - Britain benefited form Chilean espionage and the presence of Chilean troops at the border, and Chile benefited from the destruction of the Argentinian junta. I'd say that Chile benefited a lot more from not having a major war with her neighbour than Britain benefited from the absence of some of Argentina's military in the Falklands.

> which is fucking unfair since a few years prior Argentina was a complete dick and the junta acted that way since they were butthurt
>expecting argentinians to have the self awareness to realise they were at fault